Rule of Law v Rule of Man?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Which do you agree with for America, Rule of Law or Rule of Man (strength)


We are a nation of laws, established after thousands of years of humans evolving from tribes of warring groups, within the tribes and without.

We have moved toward a world where in a dispute the person who is correct with the law, not the person who is stronger, or can muster a stronger army, wins.
Is that a good thing?


In this world, if it were perfected, Rule of law would result in never needing a weapon, and power would be useless one was right with the law.


Does anyone disagree?
 
Jarod said:
Which do you agree with for America, Rule of Law or Rule of Man (strength)

We are a nation of laws, established after thousands of years of humans evolving from tribes of warring groups, within the tribes and without.

We have moved toward a world where in a dispute the person who is correct with the law, not the person who is stronger, or can muster a stronger army, wins.
Is that a good thing?

In this world, if it were perfected, Rule of law would result in never needing a weapon, and power would be useless one was right with the law.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

If every single human being on earth were a person of high moral character with a deep love and respect for fellow human beings, we would still need weapons. Especially those that do not live in downtown NYC or dallas. There are still wild animals capable of inflicting great harm and death on people. Where we run in to issues of the rule of law was experienced by the framers of Constitution......that a monarch or governing body felt that they knew what was best and made a law for that........if that law ran counter to someones rights, they would be lawfully bound to obey it. So, the lesson here is that not everyone in society is of high moral character with a deep love and respect for their fellow humans............Law is often but the tyrants will.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
If every single human being on earth were a person of high moral character with a deep love and respect for fellow human beings, we would still need weapons. Especially those that do not live in downtown NYC or dallas. There are still wild animals capable of inflicting great harm and death on people. Where we run in to issues of the rule of law was experienced by the framers of Constitution......that a monarch or governing body felt that they knew what was best and made a law for that........if that law ran counter to someones rights, they would be lawfully bound to obey it. So, the lesson here is that not everyone in society is of high moral character with a deep love and respect for their fellow humans............Law is often but the tyrants will.
Click to expand...

I understand that argument, and I agree we are not evolved enough to not need weapons for protection, we we might always need them for food or protection from animals.

As an ideal do you agree with the rule of law over the rule of man?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
If every single human being on earth were a person of high moral character with a deep love and respect for fellow human beings, we would still need weapons. Especially those that do not live in downtown NYC or dallas. There are still wild animals capable of inflicting great harm and death on people. Where we run in to issues of the rule of law was experienced by the framers of Constitution......that a monarch or governing body felt that they knew what was best and made a law for that........if that law ran counter to someones rights, they would be lawfully bound to obey it. So, the lesson here is that not everyone in society is of high moral character with a deep love and respect for their fellow humans............Law is often but the tyrants will.
Click to expand...

I understand that argument, and I agree we are not evolved enough to not need weapons for protection, we we might always need them for food or protection from animals.

As an ideal do you agree with the rule of law over the rule of man?
 
Jarod said:
Which do you agree with for America, Rule of Law or Rule of Man (strength)


We are a nation of laws, established after thousands of years of humans evolving from tribes of warring groups, within the tribes and without.

We have moved toward a world where in a dispute the person who is correct with the law, not the person who is stronger, or can muster a stronger army, wins.
Is that a good thing?


In this world, if it were perfected, Rule of law would result in never needing a weapon, and power would be useless one was right with the law.


Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

aren't the laws passed by men in legislatures?.....
 
Jarod said:
I understand that argument, and I agree we are not evolved enough to not need weapons for protection, we we might always need them for food or protection from animals.

As an ideal do you agree with the rule of law over the rule of man?
Click to expand...

until you can ensure that every single human being is of high moral charactor with a deep love and respect for their fellow human being, the rule of law will be abused just as much as the rule of man can be
 
Jarod said:
Yes, but those laws have a power of their own and are not based on brute strength, and they come from the voters, not the individual.
Click to expand...

when an elected body has the might of military strength behind their law making, they do indeed come from brute strength. stop being such a moron
 
Jarod said:
Yes, but those laws have a power of their own and are not based on brute strength, and they come from the voters, not the individual.
Click to expand...
Try disobeying the law and you will fond out all about brute strength from the cops that beat the shit out of you perpetrating your arrest to the court officer who enforces angry urges of small minded judges all the way to sadistic prison guards who pit the weak against the strong.

You are quite delusional to think that the force of law is not the brutality of Government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top